Tuesday, January 31, 2012

Or "Viagra Bob" Dole, John McLame, Matt Drudge, Elliot Abrams, Rich Lowry and National Review, Karl "Tokyo" Rove, Jennifer Rubin of the Washington ComPost and the rest of the GOP establishment whose object was to take out Newt Gingrich and silence the Tea Party.

Romney learned from his liberal buddies like "Chappaquiddick Ted" well. Run dirty and use the liberal playbook known as "The Politics of Personal Destruction."

That’s right. Mitt Romney and his allies spent more than $15 million on TV ads — only one was positive and it was in a foreign language. It ran a total of 15 times statewide.

...That is the statistic of the campaign. Mitt Romney and his allies ran a purely negative television campaign and it worked.

Ads attacking Newt Gingrich made up 68 percent of the ads in Florida; anti-Romney ads were 23 percent and pro-Gingrich ads were 9 percent.

I'm sure, after tonight, the establishment losers like McLame, who channels his nitwit daughter, will be telling us to shut up, get in line like good little sheep. Well, go to Hell jerk, cause we don't act like Democrats.

Here's the $64,000 question. Who does the GOP establishment want to run against? Obama or conservatives/Tea Party? Based on the way Mitt has campaigned, I'd almost think Newt Gingrich was a Democrat if I didn't know better. He wasn't shy in using Nancy Pelosi talking points, but refuses to call Obama a socialist.

Right! That was a winning strategy for McLame in 2008. The only thing that saved him from a landslide defeat against a certain Illinois senator was a governor from Alaska. Despite all of McLame's baggage in 2008, he doesn't have the problem Romney faces...building bridges he's burned in the last week.

Meanwhile, Romney’s heavily negative advertising only drives Tea Party activists and other conservatives from one non-Romney candidate to another. Divide and conquer is a storied strategy; it may well work in Florida. But it doesn’t build votes for Romney. The non-Romney vote–despite millions of dollars, months of media coverage and dozens of debates—remains stubbornly north of 60% among Republican voters. If Romney is going to defeat Obama, he will have to unite the Grand Old Party behind him. So far, there is no evidence is any state that he can do just that.

"Electability" is all we hear about when Romney's name is mentioned? Really? Show me, don't tell me.

Romney is not an election winner. He lost in his U.S. Senate race to unseat Ted Kennedy and decided not to seek re-election as governor, largely because he would have almost certainly lost. And he lost to John McCain in 2008, which is not exactly playing the varsity. Could he win in 2012? Arguably, but not definitely.

Miniter also notes Mittens is not a tax cutter, a good debater, not a Reaganite reformer, the GOP establishment support is a minus, and he has a racial problem, as the LDS did not see blacks as eligible members until 1978. All those cast doubt on the unproven claim he is the "most electable."

The establishment support and liberalism of Romney is also affecting Tea Party voters negatively (Ricochet).

I spoke with one such Tea Partier, Rebecca from Florida, over the weekend. She's a retired detective turned young stay-at-home mom, who labels herself a "generic Tea Partier." What she had to say was fascinating and illuminating, and it should concern just about every smart Republican. She was gracious enough to let me publicize her thoughts here at Ricochet.

Here's what she had to share:

"I became politically engaged after the 2008 election," Rebecca told me. "I used to only vote in Presidential elections and local elections that were of interest to me. In January of 2008 I saw Barack Obama give a speech and I was really wowed. He is quite a gifted speaker." She admits that she "liked what he was saying, but some things were just a little off."

She started listening to Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck again, wanting to hear what this Obama fellow was really about. But beyond that, she didn't engage in activism - she just showed up to vote for McCain, despite what she considered his "progressivism."

"Obama got elected. Then Obamacare was rammed through. I was appalled. I couldn't believe the shady way such important legislation was passed," Rebecca said. "I have some like-minded mommy friends and I got together with them. I joined our local 9/12 Project, and As A Mom and the TEA Party of Tampa Bay."

..."2010 was a real turning point for me. I watched the midterm election results as we won the House with some good, solid conservatives and I felt so proud and accomplished. I felt like we - the TEA Party, my mommy friends, ME - we had made a difference," Rebecca said. "We were helping to put our country back on the right path, and return to the ideals of our founders."

"Then came 2011," Rebecca says, and her mood clouds. "It felt like every time I turned around, John Boehner and Mitch McConnell were selling us out, hanging our Tea Party freshmen out to dry, and doing it for no apparent reason."

...So, Rebecca, about Mitt: why not Romney this time?

"I don't trust him, and I don't think he can win. He is utterly unaware of how offensive his disconnect with the average American is. He drops $10K bets like it's nothing. He thinks $342,000 isn't very much to make in a year," Rebecca

"Oh, and he invented Obamacare."

"I see a Romney nomination causing Tea Partiers like me to tune out. We are already disheartened by the congressional leadership. Romney will be the final nail in the coffin. He is completely uninspiring, and is everything we have been working so hard to defeat within the GOP," Rebecca said. "Don't even get me started on that Bain Capital picture. Ugh. There is no way he can win. And I don't want to have to defend him while he tries."

"What is the point in becoming educated on candidates and politics, arguing with my friends, taking the time away from my family - to end up with the guy McCain can't even look in the eye. Why bother?" Rebecca says. "Obviously the "establishment" has already decided it's Romney's turn, and to hell with what we want. I feel like I'm being patted on the head and told "Now go vote for Romney like a good little girl. We know what's best."... I don't even do that to my 3-year-old. It's insulting. It doesn't make me want to campaign for him."

This is what we face this year. Judging from what I've seen at various other forums, I haven't seen the intense level of negativity toward Romney as a GOP candidate. McLame didn't even come close to generating it in 2008. Sure, Mitt could try the "pick a conservative" for VP trick, but I don't think people will settle for a consellation prize this year, especially after Mitt's shenanigans.

The war between conservatives and the Republican Establishment -- and make no mistake, this is a war -- is on once more.

The people who brought the GOP losing candidates from Dewey to Dole are at it again.

Last week's assault on Newt Gingrich -- with various Romney supporters seriously and deceptively trying to tell unwitting voters that Gingrich was never really a real Reagan ally -- in reality has nothing to do with Newt Gingrich at all.

The DNC Chair, Debbie Wasserman-Schultz (aka Alan Grayson in a skirt) refused to apologize for slandering the Tea Party movement, by saying they were behind the tragic shooting last year in Tucson (Newsweak, via Weasel Zippers).

A few weeks ago, in talking about the day a crazed gunman shot Rep. Gabby Giffords in the head, Wasserman Schultz pivoted to how “the discourse in America” had taken “a very precipitous turn towards edginess and a lack of civility with the growth of the Tea Party movement.” Republican national chairman Reince Priebus demanded that she apologize for her “reckless comments blaming the Tea Party for the horrific Tucson shooting.”

Wasserman Schultz makes no apologies. Nibbling a sandwich in her House office, she says: “I make strongly worded statements so people pay attention a little to what I’m saying.”

Let's remind Poodleface Debbie where all the incivility was coming from last year...the Democrat allies in the labor movement, the President, various Democrats and the Occupy Wall Street movement that Debbie herself endorsed.

Just this weekend, in Oakland, CA, the Occupy squatters she, Nancy Pelosi, and the White House endorsed engaged the Oakland Police in a riot, in which 400 were arrested. Occupiers broke into City Hall, stole an American flag and burned it on the steps.

Hat tip FreeRepublic.com. Mark Levin, on his nationally syndicated radio show, played a YouTube clip he found of Willard "Mitt" Romney citing Sen. Ted Kennedy in the ceremony before he signed RomneyCare.

Romney calls Kennedy "my collaborator and friend."

"If it's between Obama and Romney, there's not that much difference." George Soro$

And this is the guy, Massachusetts liberal Mitt Romney, who the GOP Country Club establishment want to run against Richard Milhous Obama?

There's a lot to hide at the Department of InJustice. Mike McDaniel at Gun Values board writes about how the Holder (In)Justice Department is planning to "plead the Fifth Amendment. (excerpt)"

On December 8, 2011, appearing before the House Judiciary Committee, Attorney General Eric Holder baldly asserted that he had no idea who authorized the deadly Fast and Furious debacle and added that he would be “surprised” if any evidence about it could ever be found.

Put aside, for the moment, Holder’s lack of transparency which has become standard operating procedure for the most transparent administration in history, and consider that Mr. Holder is correct for two primary and likely reasons: he knows who is responsible for every facet of Fast and Furious and has no intention of ever revealing that information, and he has the most important, powerful ace any corrupt bureaucrat or politician could possibly have up his sleeve, but more on this later.

According to Fox News, on January 19, Patrick J. Cunningham, chief of the U.S. Attorney’s Office Criminal Division for Arizona, through his attorneys, has notified Rep. Darrell Issa’s Committee that he will not testify before the committee as requested and that if subpoenaed, will take the Fifth and refuse to testify to avoid incriminating himself. This is, as PJ Media contributor and my former co-blogger Bob Owens reported, very disturbing.

Because their jobs are public trusts, all law enforcers–police and prosecutor alike–take a solemn oath to uphold and defend not only the Constitution, also the laws of their jurisdiction. The public trusts that in doing their duties, these men and women will not break the law, and thus will be able and willing to testify about their official actions. The public is surely justified in this reasonable expectation.

So why all this lack of transparency? Could it be that a late-Friday night document drop by InJustice revealed that Holder knew about Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry's killing with a Fast and Furious weapon only hours after it happened? (Daily Caller)

Attorney General Eric Holder’s Department of Justice dumped documents related to Operation Fast and Furious on congressional officials late Friday night. Central to this document dump is a series of emails showing Holder was informed of slain Border Patrol agent Brian Terry’s murder on the day it happened – December 15, 2010.

An email from one official, whose name has been redacted from the document, to now-former Arizona U.S. Attorney Dennis Burke reads: “On December 14, 2010, a BORTAC agent working in the Nogales, AZ AOR was shot. The agent was conducting Border Patrol operations 18 miles north of the international boundary when he encountered [redacted word] unidentified subjects. Shots were exchanged resulting in the agent being shot. At this time, the agent is being transported to an area where he can be air lifted to an emergency medical center.”

That email was sent at 2:31 a.m. on the day Terry was shot. One hour later, a follow-up email read: “Our agent has passed away.”

Burke forwarded those two emails to Holder’s then-deputy chief of staff Monty Wilkinson later that morning, adding that the incident was “not good” because it happened “18 miles w/in” the border.

Wilkinson responded to Burke shortly thereafter and said the incident was “tragic.” “I’ve alerted the AG [Holder], the Acting DAG, Lisa, etc.”

Then, later that day, Burke followed up with Wilkinson after Burke discovered from officials whose names are redacted that the guns used to kill Terry were from Fast and Furious. “The guns found in the desert near the murder BP officer connect back to the investigation we were going to talk about – they were AK-47s purchased at a Phoenix gun store,” Burke wrote to Wilkinson.

Holder has faced difficult questions surrounding the question of when he was first informed of the gunwalking program. He testified in Congress that he had only learned of Fast and Furious a “few weeks” before a May 3, 2011, House Judiciary Committee appearance.

Holder has since walked back that “few weeks” comment, amending it to more of a “couple months.”

“I did say a ‘few weeks,’” Holder said during a November 8 Senate Judiciary Committee hearing, responding to a question from its chairman Vermont Democratic Sen. Patrick Leahy. “I probably could’ve said ‘a couple of months.’ I didn’t think the term I said, ‘few weeks,’ was inaccurate based on what happened.”

There have also been a series of documents containing the intimate details of Fast and Furious that were sent to Holder throughout 2010 from several of his senior aides. Holder claims he did not read his memos.

Holder will be appearing before the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform next Thursday, Feb. 2. Though Holder has already testified before Congress three times about matters relating to Fast and Furious — twice before the House Judiciary Committee and once before the Senate Judiciary Committee — this is the first time the House oversight committee will have an opportunity to question Holder himself.

Will the subject of whether or not Holder perjured himself come up? Holder knew about this, and he and his underlings are furiously covering their tracks.

How did Obama get his State Senate seat? Disqualifying potential opponents (sound familiar Virginia?). He won his US Senate seat in 2004 after the divorce records of his original GOP opponent were unsealed, and that led him to drop out of the race. Romney is following the Obama formula to the nomination.

Mitt Romney doesn't want to give you a reason to vote for him. He's going to use the Politics of Personal Destruction like a good liberal Democrat and make himself the only candidate you can vote for. Like the 2008 loser John McLame, Romney is always tougher on the conservative than he is a liberal. All the mud and dirty politics slung at Newt, and Romney doesn't have the guts to call Obama what he is...a socialist.

In fact, it goes back well before Romney’s 2008 campaign got underway in earnest. It seems to date back to sometime in 2005, when RNC operatives arranged a meeting between Matt Drudge and Matt Rhodes — a highly placed operative in the Romney organization.

Last year, a delegation of RNC officials flew to Miami Beach, where Drudge lives, for a dinner at the Forge steakhouse to introduce the Internet maven to Matt Rhodes, the party’s new opposition research director.

Due to Drudge’s now-close friendship with Romney’s chief aide and longtime GOP opposition researcher, it’s a safe bet Perry supporters won’t have many positive headlines to look forward to from the erstwhile gadfly. Having apparently been fully co-opted by the dread Republican Establishment, Drudge has been feeding the conservative online community a steady diet of pro-Romney headlines for years and, more recently, anti-Perry headlines — just to strike a balance, you see.

Just this week, for example, five of six Drudge headlines about Perry include bad news, from polling to policy: “PERRY APOLOGIZES FOR CALLING GOP VOTERS ‘HEARTLESS’… Iowa: Romney 21%, Bachmann 15%, Perry 14%, Paul 12%…POLL: CAIN ON TOP, PERRY PLUMMETS…PERRY: MY WIFE PRODDED ME TO RUN.”
Romney benefited from similar treatment from Drudge during his last run for the White House, when Drudge went hammer-and-tong against each of his opponents — reserving special scrutiny for Mike Huckabee:

A year ago, Rhodes signed on to Romney’s campaign. Since then, Drudge-watchers have noted Drudge’s consistent refusal to hype–and in many cases to even mention–negative stories about Romney. But now Huckabee threatens to blow Romney’s nomination strategy. Since last week, Drudge has unleashed a torrent of screaming, anti-Huckabee headlines, culminating in today’s “exclusive” (which cites one unnamed Democrat) about the Democrats’ supposed hope that Huckabee will emerge as the G.O.P. nominee.

Rhodes (or Rhoades — the correct spelling is unclear at this time) was brought back on board to head up Romney’s “Free and Strong America PAC” as executive director early in 2015. As Ben Smith noted at the time:

Rhoades, who’s moving to Boston, is a well-regarded guy whose return to Romney pretty much confirms what will surprise nobody: That he’s running in 2012. He’s also, incidentally, been valued for his relationship with a key player in any GOP primary, Matt Drudge.

And by June of this year, Romney had already established a dominant position in what has come to be known as the “Drudge Primary” — which is apparently modeled on the Cuban electoral process:

A survey of the past 13 months of Drudge headlines found only one debatably negative reference to the 2002 Olympics CEO (“Bachmann Outraises Romney”) — and a survey of aides to his rivals found a rising level of frustration at what one described as “favoritism” by one of the most important, if also one of the quirkiest, referees.

“One of the mysteries of Drudge is how he continues to be such a mystery. Never clear how or why he leans for or against candidates. But there is a lot of behind-the-scenes, very quiet and secretive mojo that goes on,” said Mark McKinnon, who, as a top adviser to John McCain in 2008, watched with dismay as Drudge gave top billing to questions about the Arizona senator’s health.

“It looks like someone in Romneyland has figured out the secret code,” McKinnon said.

Of course, there’s nothing inherently wrong with an outlet having a preference for one candidate over the other. Matt Drudge is certainly entitled to support whomever he thinks is the best candidate and for whatever reasons he chooses to do so. At the same time, though, conservatives who frequent the Drudge Report to glean information are entitled to know of his connections to people involved in campaigns irrespective of whether or not he feels his editorial decisions are affected by those connections.

When Mitt cannot control the narrative, he (like Obama) gets thin skinned. This clip is from his 2008 campaign.

I will say that in all the time I've followed politics online, I've never seen more people since Thursday who have said they would not vote for Romney if he wins the nomination. I didn't see that in 2008, when we had McLame. Romney is inspiring more people to vote against him, instead of helping him defeat Obama.

"What does it profit a man to gain the whole world and lose his soul?"

Jacksonville,FL- After last night’s Republican Presidential debate, the candidates’ respective spinmeisters made their cases to the media as to why their guy won the debate. One of Governor Mitt Romney’s spokesmen was Florida Representative Will Weatherford, and during the course of his remarks in the “Spin Room”, he shed a very dim light on the ongoing redistricting process in the Florida Legislature. Over the past several weeks, many Republicans have voiced their disappointment towards the Republican legislature after the release of the preliminary redistricting maps. Much of the ire concerns the proposed boundaries of Congressman Allen West’s 22nd Congressional District that would be redrawn to include far more registered Democrats.

West’s congressional district inexplicably sheds the most out support as compared to all other incumbent Republican and Democrat Congressman. A few weeks back we quoted an unnamed legislator saying that, “Allen West was screwed”, a statement which was originally made about made five months before the proposed maps were made public, leading insiders to believe that the fix was in against Allen West. But in light of Weatherford’s comment, it is increasingly clear that this is a fait accompli.

According to Weatherford, those preliminary maps will not change- at the most, any additional changes would be minimal, and those changes would not make any appreciable difference from the preliminary maps. In addition, Weatherford stated that a deal was struck between him, Senate President Mike Haridopolos, and Senator Don Gaetz to finalize these maps and push them through as soon as possible. Weatherford also said that the proposed maps are in legal compliance with both the Voting Rights Act and Amendment 6.

So based on Weatherford’s comments, the 22nd Congressional District is now very much in play for the Democrat Party, and West is at an even larger disadvantage than he was previously- it will be a very difficult and expensive seat for Republicans to defend.

You can go to SaveAllenWest.com to help this patriot. What is happening to him is an outrage, and it shows the true colors of Romney allies and the GOP establishment. They think conservative Tea Party types are more of a threat than liberal Democrats.

This, as well as the negative avalanche against Newt, have cemented my resolve that if, God forbid, Mitt Romney manages to bully and buy his way to become the GOP nominee, he WILL NOT get my vote in November. If Obama wins re-election, so be it. I will concentrate my efforts on keeping the House and winning the Senate.

It is now no longer enough to run as a candidate. Tea Party activists and conservatives need to get into the party apparatus and keep the GOP a party of Reagan conservatism...one of bold colors, and not the pale pastels of the Rockefeller, Ford, Bush, Dole, and Romney liberalism.

Saturday, January 28, 2012

"I hereby officially and enthusiastically endorse Newt Gingrich for President of the United States," Cain said at a dinner the two attended in Florida on Saturday night.

"I know what this sausage grinder is all about. I know he's going through this sausage grinder because he cares about the American people," Cain said referring to the 2012 political campaign that has so far produced three different winners in three contests.

Gingrich, a former House of Representatives speaker, is in a fierce fight for Tuesday's Florida's Republican primary with Mitt Romney.

Cain, a favorite of the conservative tea party movement and a former pizza executive, left the race before the first nominating contests facing accusations of unwanted sexual advances. He remains popular, however, and would be a late boost for Gingrich.

With the doubling down by the GOP Country Club establishment behind Willard "Mitt" Romney, it appears as all sanity has left the party. That's true not just at a national level, but at a state level as well.

Remember how his father, former Senator Arlen Sphincter, was a former Democrat who switched parties in 1980 to ride the Reagan wave to the US Senate, only to switch parties in 2009 and become the key vote for Richard Milhous Obama to have a filibuster proof majority for a brief time in the US Senate.

The Obama 2012 campaign is going all out this year, even having Caroline Kennedy bring Uncle Teddy's corpse out in the effort to remind you how he deceived many into supporting him.

Friend --

Four years ago today, I joined my Uncle Teddy and thousands of excited students at American University to endorse Barack Obama as the next president of the United States.

Barack Obama had stirred something in young people and the young at heart. I saw the passion in my own teenage children, and I heard it from a different generation of people who said they felt like they did when my father ran for president.

We felt strongly that we needed to elect a president who urged us to believe in ourselves, who could tie that belief to our highest ideals, and who understood that together we can do great things.

Four years later, as I think about what first inspired me to support Barack Obama, I'm proud we have a president who has fought hard for the values Teddy held dear, and stood up on issues that matter.

Will you join me by saying what first inspired you to stand with Barack Obama?

http://my.barackobama.com/Teddy

Teddy understood that the challenges of health care aren't political -- they are personal. That's why he fought for 40 years to make health care a right and not a privilege for American families.

How proud he would have been to see his candidate sign the Affordable Care Act into law as president, giving all Americans the security of knowing that their health care will be there when they need it most.

In his speech four years ago today, Teddy reminded us all of that bright light of hope and possibility that shines even in the darkest hours. He knew that with Barack Obama as president, America would shine again. I don't think he would be surprised to know that four years later, this president would have ended the war in Iraq, repealed "Don't Ask, Don't Tell," and guaranteed women the right to equal pay for equal work.

The 2012 election will be harder than the last. As you think about what role you can play this time, I want you to remember that when Teddy joined this campaign, it wasn't just Barack Obama who drew him in.

It was you.

The possibility of a campaign run by ordinary people determined to change our country for the better and willing to work as hard as necessary inspired him then, and it's what inspires me today.

Thanks for all you do.

I'll see you out there,

Caroline

P.S. -- If you'd like to take some time to watch that speech, it's here.

Florida Attorney General Pam Bondi who's fighting to repeal ObamaCare appeared on Greta, tonight, defending RomneyCare. She says Romney’s health care plan is not the same as ObamaCare and, in fact, Romney's plan reduces costs. She goes on to say that Romney wants all states to impose similar laws (including mandates) and that she and is all for it.

She went on to explain that she's going to be on Romney’s Health Care Advisory Team when he’s president!

What this means is that while Romney may say he wants to repeal ObamaCare, he actually agrees with it. He believes that RomneyCare, ie, ObamaCare is a model health care plan and all states should impose similar plans.

RomneyCare and ObamaCare are the same thing. The only difference is that Romney's was imposed at the state level where Obama's was imposed nationally. RomneyCare = ObamaCare = taxpayer funded abortion = death panels = socialism = government force = fascism = tyranny!!

So Romney and his co-conspirators in the GOP establishment are now planning a National Healthcare Task Force to impose top-down government run national healthcare on all 50 states!!

We all know what Reagan said about government by a group of elites and that socialism would be imposed on America through socialized health care. Well, welcome to the Socialist States Of America if Romney is elected.

If the GOP does this then the hell with them!!

This is tyranny!!

We are the resistance!!

Rebellion is on!!

Go, Tea Party!!

Go, Newt!!

Live free or die!!

And all you idiot establishment Republicans who are pushing this fraud Romney on us think this guy can go up against Richard Milhous Obama, when he essentially agrees with Obamacare?

There is no difference between Romney and Obama, except Romney claims to be a Republican. They're both big government, liberal, Alinsky-ites.

The Country Club establishment of the Republican Party is becoming more and more like their liberal Democrat counterparts in the way they will employ the politics of personal destruction just to get one of their own elected.

We've seen in the last couple of days how the Country Clubbers will use lies by former Reagan Administration officials and spread them through their media lapdogs. Even when they are called out on their lies, many of them, like Rich Lowry at National Review, double down on stupid.

Former GOP presidential candidate, Mike Huckabee “would love for” Newt Gingrich to pull a political campaign ad that features a comment he made during the 2008 campaign that appears to slam Mitt Romney for being “dishonest.”

“I know Newt Gingrich at the end of the ad says I approved this message, well let me just say, I didn’t approve that message,” Huckabee said in an interview Friday on Fox News.

The former governor of Arkansas said his words were “taken out of context” and were also ” deceptive” because he was not referring to Romney, one of his 2008 primary rivals.

“That spot, which was back in December of 2007, never mentioned Mitt Romney by name, it never said anything about Mitt Romney. It was a general statement,” Huckabee, has not endorsed anyone so far in the 2012 presidential race, and says he doesn’t plan to do so.

OK, here's both videos below, you be the judge...is Huckabee right, or is he being dishonest?

Seriously...the GOP establishment has become so delusional in their efforts to convince us to get behind Romney, regardless of the facts about him. Their behavior is similar to a recovering alcoholic who has decided to convince everyone (and himself) he can drink like a normal person and will make the most illogical rationalizations to explain why.

Friday, January 27, 2012

We have witnessed something very disturbing this week. The Republican establishment which fought Ronald Reagan in the 1970s and which continues to fight the grassroots Tea Party movement today has adopted the tactics of the left in using the media and the politics of personal destruction to attack an opponent.

We will look back on this week and realize that something changed. I have given numerous interviews wherein I espoused the benefits of thorough vetting during aggressive contested primary elections, but this week’s tactics aren’t what I meant. Those who claim allegiance to Ronald Reagan’s 11th Commandment should stop and think about where we are today. Ronald Reagan and Barry Goldwater, the fathers of the modern conservative movement, would be ashamed of us in this primary. Let me make clear that I have no problem with the routine rough and tumble of a heated campaign. As I said at the first Tea Party convention two years ago, I am in favor of contested primaries and healthy, pointed debate. They help focus candidates and the electorate. I have fought in tough and heated contested primaries myself. But what we have seen in Florida this week is beyond the pale. It was unprecedented in GOP primaries. I’ve seen it before – heck, I lived it before – but not in a GOP primary race.

I am sadly too familiar with these tactics because they were used against the GOP ticket in 2008. The left seeks to single someone out and destroy his or her record and reputation and family using the media as a channel to dump handpicked and half-baked campaign opposition research on the public. The difference in 2008 was that I was largely unknown to the American public, so they had no way of differentiating between the lies and the truth. All of it came at them at once as “facts” about me. But Newt Gingrich is known to us – both the good and the bad.

, Newt was among a handful of Republican Congressman who would regularly take to the House floor to defend Reagan at a time when conservatives didn’t have Fox News or talk radio or conservative blogs to give any balance to the liberal mainstream media. Newt actually came at Reagan’s administration “from the right” to remind Americans that freer markets and tougher national defense would win our future. But this week a few handpicked and selectively edited comments which Newt made during his 40-year career were used to claim that Newt was somehow anti-Reagan and isn’t conservative enough to go against the accepted moderate in the primary race. (I know, it makes no sense, and the GOP establishment hopes you won’t stop and think about this nonsense. Mark Levin
and others have shown the ridiculousness of this.) To add insult to injury, this “anti-Reagan” claim was made by a candidate who admitted to not even supporting or voting for Reagan.He actually was against the Reagan movement, donated to liberal candidates, and said he didn’t want to go back to the Reagan days (MIM Note -- And we know who you're talking about here!). You can’t change history. We know that Newt Gingrich brought the Reagan Revolution into the 1990s. We know it because none other than Nancy Reagan herself announced this when she presented Newt with an award, telling us, “The dramatic movement of 1995 is an outgrowth of a much earlier crusade that goes back half a century. Barry Goldwater handed the torch to Ronnie, and in turn Ronnie turned that torch over to Newt and the Republican members of Congress to keep that dream alive.” As Rush and others pointed out, if Nancy Reagan had ever thought that Newt was in any way an opponent of her beloved husband, she would never have even appeared on a stage with him, let alone presented him with an award and said such kind things about him. Nor would Reagan’s son, Michael Reagan, have chosen to endorse Newt in this primary race. There are no two greater keepers of the Reagan legacy than Nancy and Michael Reagan. What we saw with this ridiculous opposition dump on Newt was nothing short of Stalin-esque re-writing of history. It was Alinsky tactics at their worst.

But this whole thing isn’t really about Newt Gingrich vs. Mitt Romney. It is about the GOP establishment vs. the Tea Party grassroots and independent Americans who are sick of the politics of personal destruction used now by both parties’ operatives with a complicit media egging it on. In fact, the establishment has been just as dismissive of Ron Paul and Rick Santorum. Newt is an imperfect vessel for Tea Party support, but in South Carolina the Tea Party chose to get behind him instead of the old guard’s choice. In response, the GOP establishment voices denounced South Carolinian voters with the same vitriol we usually see from the left when they spew hatred at everyday Americans “bitterly clinging” to their faith and their Second Amendment rights. The Tea Party was once again told to sit down and shut up and listen to the “wisdom” of their betters. We were reminded of the litany of Tea Party endorsed candidates in 2010 that didn’t win. Well, here’s a little newsflash to the establishment: without the Tea Party there would have been no historic 2010 victory at all.

I spoke up before the South Carolina primary to urge voters there to keep this primary going because I have great concern about the GOP establishment trying to anoint a candidate without the blessing of the grassroots and all the needed energy and resources we as commonsense constitutional conservatives could bring to the general election in order to defeat President Obama. Now, I respect Governor Romney and his success. But there are serious concerns about his record and whether as a politician he consistently applied conservative principles and how this impacts the agenda moving forward. The questions need answers now. That is why this primary should not be rushed to an end. We need to vet this. Pundits in the Beltway are gleefully proclaiming that this primary race is over after Florida, despite 46 states still not having chimed in. Well, perhaps it’s possible that it will come to a speedy end in just four days; but with these questions left unanswered, it will not have come to a satisfactory conclusion. Without this necessary vetting process, the unanswered question of Governor Romney’s conservative bona fides and the unanswered and false attacks on Newt Gingrich will hang in the air to demoralize many in the electorate. The Tea Party grassroots will certainly feel disenfranchised and disenchanted with the perceived orchestrated outcome from self-proclaimed movers and shakers trying to sew this all up. And, trust me, during the general election, Governor Romney’s statements and record in the private sector will be relentlessly parsed over by the opposition in excruciating detail to frighten off swing voters. This is why we need a fair primary that is not prematurely cut short by the GOP establishment using Alinsky tactics to kneecap Governor Romney’s chief rival.

As I said in my speech in Iowa last September, the challenge of this election is not simply to replace President Obama. The real challenge is who and what we will replace him with. It’s not enough to just change up the uniform. If we don’t change the team and the game plan, we won’t save our country. We truly need sudden and relentless reform in Washington to defend our republic, though it’s becoming clearer that the old guard wants anything but that. That is why we should all be concerned by the tactics employed by the establishment this week. We will not save our country by becoming like the left. And I question whether the GOP establishment would ever employ the same harsh tactics they used on Newt against Obama. I didn’t see it in 2008. Many of these same characters sat on their thumbs in ‘08 and let Obama escape unvetted. Oddly, they’re now using every available microscope and endoscope – along with rewriting history – in attempts to character assassinate anyone challenging their chosen one in their own party’s primary. So, one must ask, who are they really running against?

Yeah, it's great that all this clarity has been brought out and counters the "Newt isn't a real Reagnite" narrative these Mitt-Witts have been trying to foist on the GOP voters. But I begin to wonder if the damage has already been done to Newt, where, in addition to last night, it might be too late to recover.

The only possibility is that voters in Florida will maybe see through this mud and be so turned off at how Romney and his surrogates act so nasty, but he stands up at a podium spewing his pious baloney when he's attacked as it being unfair.

I heard in the radio news while in the car that the 2008 loser, John McLame, made some lame joke today at a campaign stop "let's send Newt to the moon and Romney to the White House." McLame sounds as mean as that other establishment loser from 1996, "Viagra Bob" Dole. But there is also the point that the Obama Regime cutting the space industry has led to job losses in Florida. Could McLame and Romney be turning off voters by making jokes about the space program, which could be revived under a Newt Administration?

Newt does hit back hard in this new ad:

Will this be enough to make the difference or has the damage been done?

The Drudge Report saw a drop in traffic yesterday of two million hits in the wake of proprietor Matt Drudge's two-day attack on Republican presidential candidate Newt Gingrich.

Drudge started his attack on Gingrich Wednesday evening with a banner headline accusing Gingrich of insulting former President Ronald Reagan. Drudge carried on the attack all through Thursday, at one time having fourteen anti-Newt headlines at once.

The assault on Gingrich prompted many supporters to announce they were swearing off the Drudge Report with some saying they would stop using it as their home page.

According to statistics posted by the Drudge Report, the site's hits on Wednesday, January 26, were 33, 807, 227.

Yesterday the hits, as published today on the Drudge Report, were down a full two million to 31, 802, 534.

As of yesterday, Drudge Report, S.E. Cupp, and National Review Online are no longer in my blogroll, since they want to be shills for a liberal Republican. I'm looking forward to seeing what kind of reception Ann Coulter gets at CPAC this year.

Who knows what might happen in the Floriday Primary, but the antics of the Romney acolytes against Newt and his dirty campaigning in general have, from my review of online comments yesterday, have turned so many off that many will not vote for him, if he is the nominee.

Suspected military shooter Yonathan Melaku Thursday pleaded guilty to firing into military installations throughout the region.

Prosecutors charged Melaku last year, saying they have evidence linking him to a series of overnight shootings in October and November of 2010 at a number of military buildings in northern Virginia. No one was injured in the shootings.

“Yonathan Melaku pled guilty to carrying out a calculated, destructive campaign to instill terror throughout our community,” said U.S. Attorney Neil MacBride. “The video he filmed during one drive-by shooting is a chilling portrayal of his intent and the escalating danger he posed. Thanks to the FBI and their law enforcement partners, we were able to apprehend Mr. Melaku, develop the evidence that linked him to the shootings, and secure this conviction today.”

As the federal judge questioned Melaku Thursday whether he committed each of these crimes, Melaku replied quietly "Yes sir," with his hands clasped behind his back.

... Charles Krauthammer (who worked for Mondale in 1984), and the Ditzy Chicks (Ann Coulter, S.E. Cupp, Jennifer Rubin) do his dirty work for him in the alleged "conservative" media.

Mitt Romney, like Richard Millhous Obama or any other liberal Democrat, is using the Politics of Personal Destruction against Newt Gingrich because Romney cannot run on his record as a Northeastern, liberal elitist Republican who lost more elections than he's won and whose big policy accomplishment was the basis for the job killer known as ObamaCare.

And Romney wants to tell us who the real Reagnite is? It sure wasn't him.

When Newt Gingrich laid the groundwork to take back the House, where was Willard Romney, the liberal Northeastern Republican?

“I am deeply disturbed that supporters of Mitt Romney are claiming that Newt Gingrich is not a true Reaganite and are even claiming that Newt was a strong critic of my father.

“Recently I endorsed Newt Gingrich for president because I believe that Newt is the only Republican candidate who has both consistently backed the conservative policies that my father championed and the only Republican that will continue to implement his vision.

“It surprises me that Mitt Romney and his supporters would raise this issue — when Mitt by his own admission voted for Jimmy Carter and Walter Mondale who opposed my father, and later supported liberal Democrat Paul Tsongas for president.

“As governor of Massachusetts, Romney’s achievement was the most socialistic healthcare plan in the nation up until that time.

“Say what you want about Newt Gingrich but when he was Speaker of the House he surrounded himself with Reagan conservatives and implemented a Ronald Reagan program of low taxes and restrained federal spending.

“Newt’s conservative program created a huge economic boom and balanced the budget for the first time in more than a generation.”

Mike Reagan concluded: “I would take Newt Gingrich’s record any day over Mitt Romney’s.”

It will be interesting to see how this plays out the debate tonight. But Newt needs to stop this and smack Mitt down. And any "conservative" who still attacks Newt while deluding that Mitt Romney is the most conservative candidate, I no longer have any use for you!

Bobby Jindal got the same treatment when Obama came to visit Louisiana and the governor met him on the tarmac. Jindal would later recount in his book:

I was expecting words of concern about the oil spill, worry about the pending ecological disaster, and words of confidence about how the federal government was here to help. Or perhaps he was going to vent about BP’s slow response. But no, the president was upset about something else. And he wanted to talk about, well, food stamps. Actually, he wanted to talk about a letter that my administration had sent to Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack a day earlier.

The letter was rudimentary, bureaucratic, and ordinary. . . . We were simply asking the federal government to authorize food stamps for those who were now unemployed because of the oil spill. Governors regularly make these sorts of requests to the federal government when facing disaster.

But somehow, for some reason, President Obama had personalized this. And he was upset.

Wednesday, January 25, 2012

President Obama arrived in Phoenix at 3:15 pm local time, finding the chilly weather of Iowa giving way to sunny skies and temperatures in the high 60s.

He stepped off Air Force One at 3:28 pm and was greeted by Gov. Jan Brewer. She handed him a handwritten letter in an envelope and they spoke intensely for a few minutes. At one point, she pointed her finger at him.

Afterwards, your pooler spoke with the governor.

"He was a little disturbed about my book, Scorpions for Breakfast. I said to him that I have all the respect in the world for the office of the president. The book is what the book is. I asked him if he read the book. He said he read the excerpt. So."

Asked what aspect of the book disturbed him, Brewer said: "That he didn't feel that I had treated him cordially. I said I was sorry he felt that way but I didn't get my sentence finished. Anyway, we're glad he's here. I'll regroup."

On the letter, she said it was personal letter asking him to sit down with her to discuss the "Arizona comeback."

She said she "reiterated an invitation that I've extended to him before with regards to coming to arizona and going to the border with me." She said she would take him to lunch.

"We've had a remarkable comeback here and I want to share that with him."

She said the president brought up the book.

"I thought we probably would've talked about the things that were important to him and important to me, helping one another. Our country is upside down. Arizona was upside down. But we have turned it around. I know again that he loves this country and I love this country."

It was clear from the moment they greeted one another that this would not be a run-of-the-mill encounter between the president and a local official. At one point, she was pointing her finger at him and at another, they were talking at the same time, seemingly over each other.

He appeared to walk away from her while they were still talking, and she confirmed that by saying she didn't finish her sentence.

When Brewer spoke with your pooler, the AP and an NBC producer for several minutes afterwards, she appeared a bit flustered and taken aback by the conversation. Asked if she was, that's when Brewer said, "I'll regroup."

Brewer and Arizona have been under fire since she decided to do the job Obama and Eric Holder won't do...secure the border. This has led to Holder's InJustice Department taking the unprecedented step of taking a state to court for enforcing laws.

As Ben Domenech notes in his Transom, Mitt Romney’s advisors have now advised him to support “a $2 gas tax, a VAT, and open Taliban talks.” Add to that list not repealing Obamacare. Norm Coleman, an advisor to Romney, went on record saying

We’re not going to do repeal. You’re not going to repeal Obamacare… It’s not a total repeal… You will not repeal the act in its entirety, but you will see major changes, particularly if there is a Republican president… You can’t whole-cloth throw it out. But you can substantially change what’s been done.

We’ve had this dribble out at the Romney Fan Club over at National Review too — just fix it, don’t repeal it. There are practical reasons for doing so, but we should not lose our perspective. The base of the Republican party is energized by the prospects of complete repeal. All the candidates have said they would repeal it. Mitt Romney, within the past two years, flipped his position going from nibbling to full repeal.

In the South Carolina debate on CNN last week, Newt Gingrich said he did not trust the congressional staffs (plural) and would therefore insist on full repeal via reconciliation, which is how the Democrats passed it in the first place through the Senate. His was a wise point. The congressional staffs, both Democrat and Republican, have started functioning as an entrenched legislative branch bureaucracy both doing what they think best for the country even when the voters want otherwise.

In fact, the entrenched legislative bureaucracy has a great deal to do with congressional disapproval in the public. Republican staffers want to inch the ball down the field instead of fighting. Democrat staffers are far more aggressive.

If a Republican gets into the White House and does not sweat blood trying to repeal Obamacare in its entirety (regardless of success), I predict the end of the Republican Party legitimately. It won’t be worth fighting for if the party itself does not think it worth fighting for its voters. If the GOP takes back the White House, it’s voters will expect a real fight, not a half-hearted attempt.

This is a classic Romney flip/flop.

In September, he said he would provide a waiver to all 50 states from Obamacare.

Now his aide, Norm Coleman, who was so putrid he couldn't beat Stewart Smalley, said there will be no repeal of Obamacare under a Romney Administration.

So paging Ann Coulter, is this the "real conservative" you keep touting?

There's nothing at all conservative about Slick Willard Romney. He's a liberal disguised as a Republican, but too many in the conservative media are too busy attacking Newt Gingrich for allegedly attacking captialism to notice.

Found over at The Right Scoop, here's a CNN report from 1999 on Newt Gingrich being exonerated by the IRS on false charges by David Bonior and that race baiter John Lewis of a college class being a tax fraud scheme.

Of course, it doesn't help that Mitt Romney is repeating Leftist talking points, and being aided once again by Nancy "Stretch" Pelosi. Well don't lecture us about what you know, Nancy! Especially after you and your party supported and elected a President who admitted to using cocaine, went to a racist church, and is friends with domestic terrorists.

Tuesday, January 24, 2012

No, I'm not going to watch Obama's State of Delusion Address, which is going to be given in about 30 minutes. Personally, I'd rather watch paint dry. I also have a low tolerance for bullshit.

In case you haven't figured it out, I can tell you this much, it's a campaign speech wrapped up in a Constitutionally required presentation by the President.

And he's turning it into a campaign fundraiser. Mark Levin, at the top of this hour, read this e-mail he'd received from Obama from his campaign. Since I was out, I checked my iPhone and saw it in my e-mail box as well. Here it is.

So there you go. This is going to be a campaign speech, not a State of the Union.

And we know the State of Obama's Union: More divided, more in debt, more in dependence on government, less secure, less jobs and opportunity for our fellow Americans.

Herman Cain is going to give Tea Party Express' rebuttal to Obama's campaign speech, which you can view at 10:30 p.m. EDT by click onto CainConnections.com.

Chris Delamo of Red Pill Forums heard rumors of Romney supporters being paid to support the former Massachusetts governor in South Florida and went to check it out.

This is what he found (h/t FreeRepublic). A man who claimed to be unemployed admits to being paid to wear a Romney T-shirt outside an early voting place.

On camera, a Romney "supporter" at an early voting location says he was paid by the South Florida Romney campaign effort to wear a shirt and maintain a presence. Having a handful of Romney supporters at the site likely helped make the impression on potential voters who lack the capacity to think for themselves that they, because of Romney's large "support", they should vote for him. Makes perfect sense...

If you're in Florida and see these types of people, take your video camera or cell phone camera and get interviews.

This is why Romney is a lot like Obama. He shows how willing he is to run his own astroturf organization.

How fitting, and it comes on the day that Richard Milhous Obama gives his State of Delusion Address to Congress tonight (Big Government).

On Monday, the Ranking Republican of the Senate Budget Committee Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-AL) and the Chairman of the House Budget Committee Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI) released a joint statement blasting Democrats for their budgetary inaction and contrasting it with Republican efforts:

Senate Democrats abandoned their official duty to prioritize Americans’ hard-earned tax dollars and tackle our nation’s most pressing economic challenges—dealing a painful blow to fiscal progress that may be felt for some time. This contrasts sharply with the record of the House Republicans. Last spring, the new House Majority publicly produced a budget plan before the nation, brought it forward in committee, and passed it on the floor. The budget’s principled solutions honestly confront our nation’s most difficult challenges, putting the budget on a path to balance and the country on a path to prosperity.

To mark the inauspicious 1,000-day anniversary, the Heritage Foundation released a series of budget facts and urged the Senate to meet its Constitution requirements for fiscal stewardship:

•The last time the Senate passed a budget was on April 29, 2009.
•Since that date, the federal government has spent $9.4 trillion, adding $4.1 trillion in debt [annual interest payments on the debt now exceed $200 billion].
•As of January 20, the outstanding public debt stands at $15,240,174,635,409.
•Interest payments on the debt are now more than $200 billion per year.
•President Obama proposed a FY2012 budget last year, and the Senate voted it down 97–0. (And that budget was no prize—according to the Congressional Budget Office, that proposal never had an annual deficit of less than $748 billion, would double the national debt in 10 years and would see annual interest payments approach $1 trillion per year.)
•The Senate rejected House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan’s (R–WI) budget by 57–40 in May 2011, with no Democrats voting for it.
•In FY2011, Washington spent $3.6 trillion. Compare that to the last time the budget was balanced in 2001, when Washington spent $1.8 trillion ($2.1 trillion when you adjust for inflation).
•Entitlement spending will more than double by 2050. That includes spending on Medicare, Medicaid and the Obamacare subsidy program, and Social Security. Total spending on federal health care programs will triple.
•By 2050, the national debt is set to hit 344 percent of Gross Domestic Product.
•Taxes paid per household have risen dramatically, hitting $18,400 in 2010 (compared with $11,295 in 1965). If the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts expire and more middle-class Americans are required to pay the alternative minimum tax (AMT), taxes will reach unprecedented levels.
•Federal spending per household is skyrocketing. Since 1965, spending per household has grown by nearly 162 percent, from $11,431 in 1965 to $29,401 in 2010. From 2010 to 2021, it is projected to rise to $35,773, a 22 percent increase.

Sen. Harry Reid explained the Senate’s budgetary inaction by saying that it would be “foolish” to pass a budget.

Other Democrats, like Sen. Dick Durbin and Rep. Nancy Pelosi ,have argued that there’s no point in passing a budget that Republicans would filibuster. There’s only one problem with that argument: the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 made budgets entirely immune to filibusters and states that budgets may be passed with a simple majority.

If I were on the floor of the House tonight, I'd want to lead a chant of "1,000 days" to hit Obama and his party on this mismangagement of our tax dollars.

Monday, January 23, 2012

Someone get Ann Coulter a room in the looney bin because she's lost it (Gateway Pundit).

Really....she should be embarassed after sounding that unhinged. Sorry Anne! At the rate you're going five years from now, you'll be working as a waitress in some greasy spoon truckstop diner along the New Jersey Turnpike.

With a smile and snicker, Sarah Palin took down the fat boy governor of New Jersey and his Tony Soprano attitude, after he bashed Newt Gingrich on Meet the Depressed yeaterday (Real Clear Politics, video from Gateway Pundit).

"Poor Chris, this is a rookie mistake. He played right into the media's hands," Fmr. Gov. Sarah Palin (R-Alaska) said about NJ Gov. Chris Christie calling Newt Gingrich an "embarrassment" to the party.

"Sometimes, if your candidate loses in just one step along this path, as was the case when Romney lost to Newt the other night. And of course, Romney is Chris Christie's guy, well you kind of get your panties in a wad and you may say things that you regret later and I think that is what Chris Christie did," Palin added.